By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed in 2020, stated the Supreme Court lacks the power to enforce its rulings if a president chooses to ignore them, lacking the “power of the purse” and “power of the sword.” She discussed her legal theory of originalism and the ongoing debate surrounding executive power, specifically referencing the “unitary executive theory.” Barrett acknowledged that the court often makes decisions along partisan lines, though she maintains she is “nobody’s justice.” During the interview, she was hesitant to discuss what the court’s role might be in the face of an executive challenging its authority.
Read the original article here
Conservative Justice Admits Supreme Court ‘Lacks the Power’ to Stop Trump Defying Them.
The bombshell revelation that a Supreme Court Justice admits the court’s impotence to reign in a president who chooses to ignore its rulings is a stark moment, isn’t it? It shakes the very foundation of what we believe to be the cornerstone of our justice system. The court, as we’re told, can’t truly *enforce* its own decisions if the president simply waves them away. They lack the teeth, the muscle, the authority to make defiance costly. The words, “We lack the power of the sword,” are chilling, aren’t they? They paint a picture of a system teetering on a precipice, reliant on the good faith of those in power.
The immediate reaction is a mix of disbelief and frustration. If the Supreme Court is essentially a paper tiger, then what’s the point? What protects us from executive overreach? Some might say that the court could still make sound judgments, regardless of the enforcement limitations. But the core concern remains: the threat of selective adherence to the law, where compliance depends on the whims of the person at the top. The idea that we’ve relied on norms and respect for 250 years, only to find they’re an illusion in the face of blatant disregard, is a sobering thought.
This admission is particularly alarming given the current political climate. The very idea that any president could simply ignore a court ruling, knowing there are no real consequences, opens the door to potential chaos. The implications for the future are frightening, especially if this becomes a precedent. It’s hard not to feel like the breaks have been removed from the car, and we’re hurtling toward an unknown destination. What happens if other states and political entities decide to follow suit? A fractured legal landscape, where the rule of law is a suggestion, not a mandate.
Some might argue that the Supreme Court still possesses a crucial role, establishing legal precedents that lower courts can follow. However, even if those precedents are well-established, they are only as effective as their enforcement. Without a robust mechanism to ensure compliance, the authority of the court is severely diminished. The court’s lack of enforcement power underscores the significance of the other branches of government and the role of the American people.
Of course, the power to impeach a lawless president still rests with Congress, as laid out by the Constitution. But the reality is that the checks and balances are not always effective. The current political climate can obstruct checks and balances, and it takes a strong coalition within those other branches to oppose those who break the law. Moreover, the people can exert pressure. The voices of concerned citizens must be heard. Pressure on our representatives, voting those who refuse to uphold their duties out of office – these are the tools we have left.
The response to this admission should be more than just anger and despair. We need to remember that We The People are the ultimate source of power, as a popular sentiment goes. It’s not just about the Supreme Court. It’s about preserving the rule of law, and that’s a collective responsibility. It demands vigilance, participation, and a willingness to defend the principles that underpin our nation. It is about demanding justice and accountability.
Some might say this admission is a sign of surrender, a tacit acknowledgment of the court’s inability to resist a potentially tyrannical government. It certainly sounds like capitulation. Some would point out that Justices could and should rule in a way that is just, despite any lack of enforcement. This is about establishing a clear record of the law. The court’s power isn’t about physical force, but about clarity. We should also consider how important it is that the court make such statements in advance, to make sure this is clear to the population.
This isn’t just a political issue; it’s a fundamental question of what kind of country we want to be. Will we allow the Constitution to be eroded? Will we stand by as norms are shattered and rules are disregarded? The answer lies in our collective response. The stakes are undeniably high, and the time to act is now. Perhaps, what we need is a call for a constitutional convention. And remember, the people are the sword.